Higher tuition fees will penalise the middle class the most

As a student representative from a Russell Group institution in London, I take issue with Will Hutton's assertion ("University fees are going to rise, so the poor must be given a break", Comment) – and by proxy, that of Lord Browne's – that the fairest way of funding higher education would be to raise tuition fees to an unprecedented level and establish a market within the sector.

Instead, this proposal would create the exact antithesis of fairness. Already, most students are graduating with £25,000 of debt. With fees at the suggested £10,000, for students in London this will increase to at least £50,000. At the current rate, maintenance loans only cover accommodation costs. Other basic living costs must be funded through support from family, part-time work or further loans. With no guarantee that completion of the degree will result in higher earnings, who is going to take the risk?

I would suggest it will only be those who have the comfort of parents rich enough to bankroll them through their higher education. Bursaries and scholarships may quite rightly protect the very poorest, but I fear for those from middle-income families. Which parent could honestly advise their child to saddle themselves with a millstone of debt that will affect their life choices for the next 25 years when there is no guarantee of a return on that investment? Immediately, the choice of higher education moves away from ability to ability to pay. Is that what qualifies as fairness?

Ryan Wain

President, King's College, London Student Union

London WC2

You can agonise as much as you like about tuition fees, but the brutal truth is that any country that believes it can't afford to educate its young people in scientific and applied scientific studies deserves all it will get.

Rod Bulco

Eldwick, west Yorkshire

Three cheers for cheerleading

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't fancy waggling my backside around in a short skirt waving a pair of pompoms either (Victoria Coren "Stuff your pompoms. This isn't sport", Comment). But when we really get down to it, despite what many "feminists" would have us believe, that's not really what cheerleading is. In fact, it couldn't be much further from the truth.

The standard of cheerleading in the US is just phenomenal. A squad walks on to the floor, the music starts and suddenly around 20 cheerleaders begin an intricate series of top-level gymnastics in unison. It's incredible.

It's quite difficult to convey just how much cheerleading deserves to be called a sport by those who have never seen it in action. The UK stereotype is a dancer in a skimpy outfit, but the majority of UK teams have absolutely nothing to do with sideline cheering.

In my opinion, the increasing popularity of cheerleading in schools is a very positive thing. What says "girl power" more than three girls working together, displaying impeccable timing and physical strength to throw their team-mate 10 feet into the air?

Gemma Earl

Leeds

The Killer Inside Me is top dollar

I was rather surprised to see The Killer Inside Me being used as an example of the financial problems of the British film industry ("UK's film-makers are 'frittering away millions'", News). The Killer Inside Me is being released around the world and will make money for its financiers. The figures quoted for the budget and the box office are wildly inaccurate. However, the more obvious issue is that The Killer Inside Me is not a British film. It is not even close to being a British film. It is based on a classic American novel, shot in the heart of America, with an American crew and an American cast led by Casey Affleck, Kate Hudson, Jessica Alba and Bill Pullman, and largely funded by private American money.

It is surprising and depressing that the Observer can make such a mistake.

Andrew Eaton and Michael Winterbottom

London EC1

Why is it wrong for Ed to care?

I wonder where our country is going when political commentator Tim Allan ("If you bury the lessons of New Labour you will bury the Labour party itself", In Focus) can write in all seriousness that the most damaging line of Ed Miliband's conference speech was to say it was wrong for a banker to earn more in a day than a care worker earns in a year. I don't pretend to know how, or indeed whether, this situation could be remedied, but that it is unacceptable should be beyond question. I find it commendable that a senior politician has felt able to say so.

Rena Feld

Brighton

Specials by name…

I found the article on special constables by Catherine Bennett ("Do we really want to be policed by hobby bobbies?", Comment) insulting to an excellent band of men and women. When my wife was a special, she singlehandedly arrested a man who was wielding an axe and who had just attacked his wife with it. She and her colleagues faced exactly the same dangers as their regular colleagues not for money, but as a contribution to their community.